Land Rover Defender vs Mazda CX-30: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mazda CX-30 burns about $2,100 of fuel annually against $3,800 for the Land Rover Defender. That $1,700 yearly gap compounds to roughly $8,500 over five years and $13,600 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Mazda CX-30 leads in both cycles — 26 mpg city and 33 mpg highway against 18 and 23 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Land Rover Defender is recorded with 2 distinct engine configurations (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI), the Mazda CX-30 with 2 (SIDI, SIDI; With Cylinder Deactivation). Across 54 recorded Land Rover Defender configurations and 19 for the Mazda CX-30, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Land Rover Defender is offered with 4-Wheel Drive, the Mazda CX-30 with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Standard Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mazda CX-30 emits 309 g/mile of CO2 versus 444 g/mile for the Land Rover Defender. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.